RootsWeb.com Mailing Lists
Home

Results for list 'genbrit'

Total: 2/2
    1. Re: Quarter years
    2. Richard Smith

    3. On 18/08/13 22:53, Charles Ellson wrote: > On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:06:19 +0100, Graeme Wall > <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 18/08/2013 20:30, Richard Smith wrote: >>> On 18/08/13 20:24, Graeme Wall wrote: >>> >>>> 1900s plural is the decade, just as 1920s plural is the decade. >>> >>> You may use that convention, but a lot of people do use 1900s to mean >>> the century, so the ambiguity is still there. >> >> Not something I've noticed, >> > Nor me. Whilst I don't doubt you, it really does surprise me. "1900s" is perhaps not the best example, but have you really never heard or seen "In the 1700s ..." and thought it probably mean the whole century rather than just its first decade? I think if I heard that, I'd assume it meant the century by default. Perhaps there's some sort of regional or generational difference in usage that I've not noticed before. Richard

    08/18/2013 05:35:09
    1. Re: Quarter years
    2. Frank Erskine

    3. On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 23:35:09 +0100, Richard Smith <richard@ex-parrot.com> wrote: >On 18/08/13 22:53, Charles Ellson wrote: >> On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:06:19 +0100, Graeme Wall >> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 18/08/2013 20:30, Richard Smith wrote: >>>> On 18/08/13 20:24, Graeme Wall wrote: >>>> >>>>> 1900s plural is the decade, just as 1920s plural is the decade. >>>> >>>> You may use that convention, but a lot of people do use 1900s to mean >>>> the century, so the ambiguity is still there. >>> >>> Not something I've noticed, >>> >> Nor me. > >Whilst I don't doubt you, it really does surprise me. "1900s" is >perhaps not the best example, but have you really never heard or seen >"In the 1700s ..." and thought it probably mean the whole century rather >than just its first decade? I think if I heard that, I'd assume it >meant the century by default. > >Perhaps there's some sort of regional or generational difference in >usage that I've not noticed before. > I'd have thought that for a family tree or any family history, precision to merely the century would be fairly insignificant in the light of other related data :-) -- Frank Erskine Sunderland

    08/18/2013 06:14:20